Anti-immigrant rhetoric

[mikkel_the_dane]

This is the original; the clip is literally a segment from this specific debate.

Then post the time stamp. It is your burden of proof.

 

[anotherneil]

And you won't answer the question I have about this video.


Now it goes both ways. But I answer you in the positive for at least one post, so it is your turn now to answer me and then you can ask again and I will answer. But first you answer about the video with Biden and if you have checked that one according to your standard.

As far as I know, I have answered your question about this video. If you meant to ask something different than what you actually wrote, then I'm not going to know what that question is.

What do you wish to ask me, whether I watched the entire segment from start to finish while Biden is speaking, including the question Jorge Ramos asked him? The answer is yes, I did watch that entire segment; the edited clip isn't altered, and it doesn't distort his response in such a way that presents a false narrative regarding what Biden said in the entire segment.

If that isn't what you're trying to ask, then be more articulate.

 

[Tomef]

No I'm not claiming that those adults are not their parents. We do not know whether or not they're their parents.

The burden of proof is on the adults to prove that they're the parents of the children that are with them, and the burden of proof is on you too if you want to claim that they are the parents of those children.

This is truly absurd. When people arrive with their children at the border, your idea is that the state should assume those children are not theirs, or what? For what reason/ based on what.

This:

You don't seem to understand - this is to protect children from being trafficked.

Is BS. The stated intent of the policy, when implemented, was to deter mothers from travelling to the US border with their children. All the other crap was added later to try and justify this policy.

Of course you have a burden of proof to demonstrate that children are not the children of their parents before separating them, for months on end, with no tracking process. If that is not obvious to you, there is something fundamentally wrong with you.

Hundreds of those parents were forcibly deported from the US, without their children, because in the chaos created by Trump's clumsy strategy it was impossible to locate them. You can find the details in the link I said to you earlier.

The 'family separations' are not to do with trafficking or false claims of familial relationship - those are dealt with separately. The term family separations refers only to family units, determined following an interview and document check process by which the truth or otherwise of relationship claims is determined. https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/f...Separation Guidance 01082020 (1)_Redacted.pdf

Those determined to be false during the same period - i.e. the period of the Trump administration of the border - number in the several hundreds, whereas those family units - people already determined by border agents to be members of the same family number in the thousands Catastrophic immigration policies resulted in more family separations than previously disclosed

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

As far as I know, I have answered your question about this video. If you meant to ask something different than what you actually wrote, then I'm not going to know what that question is.

What do you wish to ask me, whether I watched the entire segment from start to finish while Biden is speaking, including the question Jorge Ramos asked him? The answer is yes, I did watch that entire segment; the edited clip isn't altered, and it doesn't distort his response in such a way that presents a false narrative regarding what Biden said in the entire segment.

If that isn't what you're trying to ask, then be more articulate.

So then post the time where it happens in the big video. That is your burden of proof.

 

[Tomef]

Yes, I did, and it answers your question - right here: Anti-immigrant rhetoric

"Is it a video clip edited to portray a false narrative about Trump just like the edited video clip of him talking about the Charlottesville incident painted a false narrative about Trump?"

How does that answer the question? Your vague notions about something is not an answer.

 

[Tomef]

It's a basic yes or no question, and you didn't answer it.

Your question is intended to evade the issue, not to understand it. You attempt to narrow the question down to one arbitrary notion in order to avoid thinking seriously about it, as with all your other points.

 

[anotherneil]

I don't do that. You link the time stamp as you claim it is correct. Burden of proof.

Oh, you're just asking for the time stamp? No problemo: 1:09:15

I'll even link it for you:

ABC News Democratic Debate - WATCH THE FULL DEBATE (2019)

Here are the 5 key takeaways from the ABC News Democratic debatehttps://abcn.ws/2kg8cjX10 Democratic presidential candidates take the debate stage at Texas S...

www.youtube.com

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Oh, you're just asking for the time stamp? No problemo: 1:09:15

I'll even link it for you:

ABC News Democratic Debate - WATCH THE FULL DEBATE (2019)

Here are the 5 key takeaways from the ABC News Democratic debatehttps://abcn.ws/2kg8cjX10 Democratic presidential candidates take the debate stage at Texas S...

www.youtube.com

So you win the whole debate with all its aspects of immigration based on that? Well, no, you don't. Neither do I. It is politics and values in the end and not just facts, but also facts.

The trick as @Tomef pointed out is that you take a complex debate and reduce it down to a narrow yes no question and then think it solves anything. It doesn't.

And thus we end here again. I don't agree with our framing of the issues and you don't agree with mine. But that is how politics are.

 

[anotherneil]

This is truly absurd. When people arrive with their children at the border, your idea is that the state should assume those children are not theirs, or what? For what reason/ based on what.

How many times do I need to answer this question? It's not that there's a claim that the adult is not the parent of the child, it's that this fact is unknown.

You keep asking something to the effect, "Is it yes or no?"
And I have to keep saying that the answer is that we do not know whether the answer is yes or no.

Do you live your life by guessing at answers that you do not yet know?

This:

Is BS. The stated intent of the policy, when implemented, was to deter mothers from travelling to the US border with their children. All the other crap was added later to try and justify this policy.

Do you have a source for this? I suspect that what it actually states is something to the effect that parents are adviced not to try to cross the US border with their children without proper documentation.

Of course you have a burden of proof to demonstrate that children are not the children of their parents before separating them, for months on end, with no tracking process. If that is not obvious to you, there is something fundamentally wrong with you.

It seems like you're trying to preclude the possibility that an adult with a child is in fact not the parent. You're the one with something wrong if you can't understand that it is not impossible for an adult illegally crossing the border with a child to not to be the parent of that child.

If the issue is that they're separated for too long and there's no tracking process, then those specific issues are what need to be fixed, but an easier solution would be to build that wall.

Hundreds of those parents were forcibly deported from the US, without their children, because in the chaos created by Trump's clumsy strategy it was impossible to locate them. You can find the details in the link I said to you earlier.

That's fine I'll take your word for it (at least for now, anyways); same thing as before - if this specific problem is what needs to be fixed, then focus on a solution for this specific problem (and at this point I won't repeat the solution having something to do with a wall).

The 'family separations' are not to do with trafficking or false claims of familial relationship - those are dealt with separately. The term family separations refers only to family units, determined following an interview and document check process by which the truth or otherwise of relationship claims is determined. https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/f...Separation Guidance 01082020 (1)_Redacted.pdf

Those determined to be false during the same period - i.e. the period of the Trump administration of the border - number in the several hundreds, whereas those family units - people already determined by border agents to be members of the same family number in the thousands Catastrophic immigration policies resulted in more family separations than previously disclosed

If the problem is that there is verification that the adult is indeed the parent of the child, and they continue to be kept separated, then that's a specific problem that can be fixed.

At this point I'll mention one more time that these problems can be prevented or at least mitigated to a manageable level by installing that wall.

 

[F1fan]

Strawman.

To me it's the mindset of a cult member when they continue to read & subscribe to propaganda, spin, and deception from discredited sources.

Personally, I don't think either side are fine people; to me making a big deal one way or another about a Confederate statue is obnoxious. The ones who want it torn down are Democrats trying to erase history about the Democrat slave south; the ones who want it to remain are descendants of of the Democrat slave south who are proud of their ancestry.

Flase. Democrats are NOT trying to erase hisitory. In fact CRT is often taught in college level classes by black professors who are typically democrats. It is republicans who are embarrassed about the history of whites advocating for slavery, and even fighting a civil war to defend it. This is why there's such far right wing rhetoric against CRT. And as we see in your post a criticism of removing statues of the Confederacy, a secessionist government that decided not to be part of the USA.

What democrats oppose in the existing confederate monuments and statues is how these 1920's era acts were part of a racist resurgence in the USA. It coresponded to the rise of the KKK in the USA. Today these confederate icons are history of racism, not pride, not a dignified act of secession for an honorable cause. There is no reason to honor treason and slavery in the 21st century, even though at the time many Confederates believed they were being honorable.

Maybe I think it's stupid to make a big deal of it because I don't have a dog in that fight and I can't relate. My mother's from South America and my father's from Wilmington Delaware (which is also where I was born), a state that was with the abolitionist North during the Civil War; my understanding is that some of my ancestors served in the Union military.

Same here. On a grandfather's side there was a Union colonel named George Mack. I can't find much about him.

I don't trust Breitbart, either. I don't trust any mainstream media.

There are plenty of reputable media sources that can be trusted. Breitbart certainly isn't one of them.

If you want to try to refute the fact that Obama was putting children in cages before Trump became POTUS, go right ahead; I'd actually like to see you try.

The current law is that migrants can be detained for no more than 24 hours. The Obama administration advised the border control to follow the law. As we recall there were serious violations of both domestic and international laws during the Trump administration with cases of migrants being kept in detention for up to three days, and witout adequate sanitation, food, and shelter. Let's note the while the Obama administration did remove children from parents that were involved in criminal activity the Trump administration separated thousands of children from migrant families without any indication of them violating laws. Many children have been returned to their families but it's estimated about 600 children are still missing, mostly due to a lack of documenation of where they were taken.

AP fact check: Obama didn't have a family separation policy

President Donald Trump is falsely asserting that the federal policy that split migrant families at the border was practiced by his predecessor, Barack Obama, as well. Here's a look at Trump's claim.

www.pbs.org

Family separation – a timeline

Long before the Trump administration implemented its “zero tolerance” immigration enforcement policy in 2018, it was already separating children from their parents as part of a “pilot program” conducted in the El Paso, Texas, area and along other parts of the border.

www.splcenter.org

Trump separated more migrant families at the border than Obama

A post circulating on Facebook with pictures of Obama and Trump makes the inaccurate comparison, suggesting that the media has a bias for failing to report those figures.

apnews.com

 

[anotherneil]

Your question is intended to evade the issue, not to understand it. You attempt to narrow the question down to one arbitrary notion in order to avoid thinking seriously about it, as with all your other points.

It's not about evading or understanding anything other than the stated material in the posts. I'm trying to respond to what you wrote, not what you intend. Write what you intend in a clearly articulated way, then we'll see if I evade or don't understand something.

I may still not understand something despite being clearly articulated, in which case it's probably a learning disability on my part & you can sue me for that if you wish.

 

[Tomef]

How many times do I need to answer this question? It's not that there's a claim that the adult is not the parent of the child, it's that this fact is unknown

Says who, based on what? As above, the border services determine who is family and who isn’t before the actual children of the actual parents are separated. The actual numbers of ‘fake parents’ make up less than 1% of the total. Read the information I linked to.

If the issue is that they're separated for too long and there's no tracking process, then those specific issues are what need to be fixed, but an easier solution would be to build that wall.

Your vague, unsupported notions are irrelevant. Beliefs in some future fantasy cannot be offered as solutions.

 

[anotherneil]

So you win the whole debate with all its aspects of immigration based on that? Well, no, you don't. Neither do I. It is politics and values in the end and not just facts, but also facts.

The trick as @Tomef pointed out is that you take a complex debate and reduce it down to a narrow yes no question and then think it solves anything. It doesn't.

And thus we end here again. I don't agree with our framing of the issues and you don't agree with mine. But that is how politics are.

No I'm not trying to reduce a complex debate down to a yes/no question. What I posted was a yes/no question, and what I posted was not some sort of content that encompasses the entire debate.

If I witness an event involving hit-and-run, and investigators ask me if the car that ran off was green, it's a yes/no question about a specific detail about the event, not something that encompasses the entire hit-and-run event to a yes/no question.

 

[Tomef]

And I have to keep saying that the answer is that we do not know whether the answer is yes or no.

Do you live your life by guessing at answers that you do not yet know?

No need, the information is available, you can read it. What you mean here is you do not know, which for some reason leads you to believe said facts are unknowable.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No I'm not trying to reduce a complex debate down to a yes/no question. What I posted was a yes/no question, and what I posted was not some sort of content that encompasses the entire debate.

If I witness an event involving hit-and-run, and investigators ask me if the car that ran off was green, it's a yes/no question about a specific detail about the event, not something that encompasses the entire hit-and-run event to a yes/no question.

Yeah, but in this debate it is not a given that even what you perceive to be the correct answer solves anything as in the end, it is not just facts.

Further since you understand debate you know that any question about the world is based on assumptions that end up in a worldview of in part values. So sometimes an answer is different that what you demand, because of another set of values.
And I am not even going to consider cognitive relativism for what truth really is as relevant for this debate. But values still are.

So for your example there is a 3rd option. The car is build to change color, that is expensive but possible. So the notion of the car being green or not is not that simple, because the assumption is that the car wasn't built to change color.
So yes, I can also be skeptical.

So if you want to ask me the question and you can get one of at least 3 answers.

 

[anotherneil]

Flase. Democrats are NOT trying to erase hisitory. In fact CRT is often taught in college level classes by black professors who are typically democrats. It is republicans who are embarrassed about the history of whites advocating for slavery, and even fighting a civil war to defend it. This is why there's such far right wing rhetoric against CRT. And as we see in your post a criticism of removing statues of the Confederacy, a secessionist government that decided not to be part of the USA.

What democrats oppose in the existing confederate monuments and statues is how these 1920's era acts were part of a racist resurgence in the USA. It coresponded to the rise of the KKK in the USA. Today these confederate icons are history of racism, not pride, not a dignified act of secession for an honorable cause. There is no reason to honor treason and slavery in the 21st century, even though at the time many Confederates believed they were being honorable.

Same here. On a grandfather's side there was a Union colonel named George Mack. I can't find much about him.

There are plenty of reputable media sources that can be trusted. Breitbart certainly isn't one of them.

The current law is that migrants can be detained for no more than 24 hours. The Obama administration advised the border control to follow the law. As we recall there were serious violations of both domestic and international laws during the Trump administration with cases of migrants being kept in detention for up to three days, and witout adequate sanitation, food, and shelter. Let's note the while the Obama administration did remove children from parents that were involved in criminal activity the Trump administration separated thousands of children from migrant families without any indication of them violating laws. Many children have been returned to their families but it's estimated about 600 children are still missing, mostly due to a lack of documenation of where they were taken.

AP fact check: Obama didn't have a family separation policy

President Donald Trump is falsely asserting that the federal policy that split migrant families at the border was practiced by his predecessor, Barack Obama, as well. Here's a look at Trump's claim.

www.pbs.org

Family separation – a timeline

Long before the Trump administration implemented its “zero tolerance” immigration enforcement policy in 2018, it was already separating children from their parents as part of a “pilot program” conducted in the El Paso, Texas, area and along other parts of the border.

www.splcenter.org

Trump separated more migrant families at the border than Obama

A post circulating on Facebook with pictures of Obama and Trump makes the inaccurate comparison, suggesting that the media has a bias for failing to report those figures.

apnews.com

One big post full of BS; I'll deal with it later, because it'll be too time consuming right now for me to prepare a response.

 

[anotherneil]

Says who, based on what? As above, the border services determine who is family and who isn’t before the actual children of the actual parents are separated. The actual numbers of ‘fake parents’ make up less than 1% of the total. Read the information I linked to.

Your vague, unsupported notions are irrelevant. Beliefs in some future fantasy cannot be offered as solutions.

Well I'm skeptical of your sources, particularly because, as I said before - why are they referred to as "undocumented immigrants" if they actually have documentation?

 

[Wandering Monk]

so it's a mystery to me what appeals about him to any of you.

They are gleeful that Mango Mussolini gets Democrats upset. That's all that matters.

 

[anotherneil]

No need, the information is available, you can read it. What you mean here is you do not know, which for some reason leads you to believe said facts are unknowable.

Why would I say "yet" if I believed the facts are unknowable?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well I'm skeptical of your sources, particularly because, as I said before - why are they referred to as "undocumented immigrants" if they actually have documentation?

Yeah, you might get an answer for that or you might have to look it up. Do you want me to do it for you?